The Doctrines in the Discipline: a study of the forgotten theological presuppositions of American Methodism

FRANK BAKER Associate Professor of English Church History

/. The Birth of the American Methodist Church. The hastily summoned Methodist preachers who huddled together in a wintry Baltimore that Christmas of 1784 issued their own decla­ ration of independence. For all the thousands of miles of ocean separating them from England they had so far followed the precedents and accepted the oversight of Mr. Wesley. So it had been for more than a decade. Now, apparently with Wesley's agreement, and even on his suggestion transmitted by Dr. Thomas Coke, they made a deliberate attempt to erect a specific organization for American Methodism, fraternally linked with British Methodism but quite in­ dependent of its control. Now at last they had their own spiritual leaders in Coke and Asbury—technically equal in authority, but far from equal in the allegiance of their colleagues. (One of the ambitious little doctor's drawbacks in the eyes of the American preachers was that he functioned as Wesley's shadow, albeit a very substantial shadow, and one that, like Peter Pan's, occasionally slipped out of the control of its owner.) In 1784 the Methodist Episcopal Church secured its own national leadership, its own power to perpetuate a ministry, its own ecclesiastical organization, and also took an immense step forward in creating its own ethos. A few of the preachers doubted whether the throwing off of parental restraints (and support) by this eager Methodist adolescent was wise and timely. Thomas Haskins spoke for others when he confided to his journal : "Oh, how tottering I see Methodism now !" Their two bishops managed to hold a precarious balance on the ecclesiastical fence without falling off, either on the one side of retain­ ing full theoretical control of American Methodism for Wesley, or on the other of denying him any voice at all. At the very least they insisted that the decencies should be preserved and that, having successfully thrown Mr. Wesley to the ground, they should not kick him. He was therefore indulged with an occasional kindly reference but no actual power. Not until 1787 did the preachers explicitly 40 reject their 1784 agreement "in matters belonging to Church govern­ ment to obey [Wesley's] commands." Perhaps, however, this original agreement should have been regarded rather as a courteous gesture than as a firm commitment. The first official document embodying the organization of the new church used the title and followed the pattern of its British equivalent, though with the names of Coke and Asbury replacing those of the Wesleys. It was published in 1785 as Minutes of several conversa*- tions between the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D., the Rev. Francis Asbury and others. The extent to which this depended upon Wesley's so-called "Large Minutes" is convincingly demonstrated by the parallel arrangement of the two documents in the appendix to Bishop Tigert's Constitutional History of American Episcopal Methodism. The ferment of independence was strongly at work, however, in what was omitted, what was altered, and what was introduced, in­ cluding especially the subtitle—"composing a Form of Discipline". The second edition appeared in 1786 as an appendix to the "Ameri­ can" edition of Wesley's Sunday Service. This also retained some reminiscence of the British pattern, but experimented with a different title, which retained little of Wesley's apart from the word "Minutes" : "The General Minutes of the Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, forming the constitution of the said Church." Thereafter, for the remainder of Wesley's lifetime, his example was completely forsaken, and the following five editions of the American Methodist preachers' ecclesiastical handbook discarded Wesley's title for their own sub-title, being published as A Form of Discipline for the Ministers, Preachers, and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. All this time the administrative discipline of American Methodism was evolving, and echoes of Wesley in specific regulations steadily and inevitably diminished. The one area where his influence per­ sisted was that of doctrine. Here conditions in America were not markedly different from those in England, and indeed some of the theological battles of the parent society were later re-enacted by her daughter church, when the old weapons forged by Wesley proved to have retained their cutting edge. The dependence of American Methodism upon Wesley's theology has been both deliberately ob­ scured and strangely forgotten by succeeding generations, and only in our own day is it once more receiving careful attention. The extent of this dependence is somewhat difficult to trace, but one of the most interesting clues is to be found in the history of the Discipline. 41 We have seen that the founding fathers of the Methodist Episco­ pal Church transformed Wesley's Minutes into their Discipline. At the American Conference next but one after his death another signifi­ cant change was made in the title. Instead of A Form of Discipline the eighth edition of 1792 introduced the title that became the standard or model for most branches of American Methodism until our own day : The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episco­ pal Church in America. The operative word in this change, of course, is "doctrines". The dead founder of Methodism is rarely mentioned in the volume, but in its doctrines, thus emphasized by the altered title, we become aware of his dominating though unseen influence, a ghost walking the Discipline for all succeeding genera­ tions, his teaching enshrined though his identity almost forgotten. Even when in 1812 Wesley's theological bones were disinterred from the Discipline and buried in a grassed-over grave exceedingly difficult for later Methodists to discover, his spirit could not fully be exorcised. Here, however, I suspect that my analogy is somewhat hard to follow for those who have not shared with me the excitement of searching out Wesley's doctrinal resting place in a mysterious publi­ cation entitled, accurately but inadequately, A Collection of Interest­ ing Tracts. I will therefore return from the realms of fantasy to the prosaic task of the historian, endeavoring to trace the thread of Wesley's theology through the maze of the successive issues of the Methodist Discipline.

II. Doctrinal Sections in the Disciplines. The Minutes of 1785 contained no formal outline of belief, but the document did echo most of the doctrinal passages of Wesley's "Large Minutes". Three sections in particular call for mention. A verbatim reprint of Wesley's statement about the rise of Method­ ism, published originally in the annual Minutes for 1765 and in­ corporated with some minor changes into the "Large Minutes" from 1770 onwards, appeared thus : In 1729, two young men, reading the Bible, saw they could not be saved without holiness, followed after it, and incited others so to do. In 1737 they saw holiness comes by faith. They saw likewise, that men are justified, before they are sanctified: but still holiness was their point. God then thrust them out, utterly against their will, to raise an holy people. When Satan could no otherwise hinder this, he threw Calvinism in the way; and then Antinomianism, which strikes directly at the root of all holiness. 42 At the very least this makes clear the double Methodist emphasis upon evangelical theology and the pursuit of holiness, as well as drawing attention to some of the snares waiting to entangle the feet of unwary Protestant pilgrims who believe that salvation comes and stays by faith alone. Certainly it offers no encouragement to those Methodists who would banish theology from the pew and even from the pulpit, to languish only in the rarefied atmosphere of the seminary. The sentence about Calvinism and Antinomianism was omitted from the Disciplines of 1787, 1788, and 1789—presumably to remove an additional snare from the path of the unlearned rather than because Satan no longer wielded those weapons. In the 1790 Discipline this section was transferred to the opening address, "To the Members of the Methodist Societies in the United States", though it was not made clear that the American Methodist bishops who signed that address were not in fact the authors of the statement, but had employed the services of a ghost-writer. Not until 1796 were quotation marks added, together with a footnote which stated, "These are the words of Messrs. Wesleys themselves." And not until 1948 was this "historical statement" replaced by one emphasiz­ ing Wesley's Aldersgate experience. Other unacknowledged statements from Wesley's publications, similarly stressing points of doctrine, were carried over from the 1785 Minutes into the later Disciplines. The two most important were deemed worthy of publication as separate sections in the volumes of 1787 and its successors. "Of the Rise of Methodism" formed Section I of the 1787 Discipline, "Against Antinomianism" Section XVI, and "On Perfection" Section XXII. Of these latter doctrinal sections the first emphasized the need for good works as at least a condition of entering into and remaining in a state of salvation. The second urged: "Let us strongly and explicitly exhort all believers to go on to Perfection." Both were taken almost word for word from Wesley's "Large Minutes" by way of the 1785 American Minutes. Strangely enough, although these two important state­ ments formed an integral element of the official constitution of American Methodism from 1784 until after the epochal General Conference of 1808, their existence was completely overlooked by the classic historians of the Discipline, Robert Emory and David Sherman, and only partly realized in the masterly work of John J. Tigert, who incorrectly speaks of them as having been introduced in 43 1792 and omitted before the passage of the restrictive rules by the General Conference of 1808.1 The Discipline of 1792 re-organized the numerous small sections of previous editions into three chapters, the third containing miscella­ neous matter, mainly doctrinal, of which the re-titled "Of Christian Perfection" was section 4, and "Against Antinomianism" section 5. This arrangement was continued in the Disciplines of 1797 and 1798. To that of 1798 were added "explanatory notes" by Bishops Asbury and Coke. Those to these particular sections were very brief: "In respect to the doctrine of christian perfection, we must refer the reader to Mr. Wesley's excellent treatise on that subject;" and "The subject of antinomianism has been so fully handled by that great writer, Mr. Fletcher, that we need not enlarge on it, when it has been so completely considered by him." With the removal of the section on education in 1801 they moved up to become sections 3 and 4, and in 1804 were promoted to the head of Chapter 3, which was limited to doctrine and liturgy. Contrary to Bishop Tigert's statement, this matter was still re­ tained in the Discipline of 1808, when almost plenary powers were secured for General Conferences, subject only to a handful of restric­ tive rules. The first of these ran : "The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our articles of religion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine." This well-meant attempt to petrify the theological status quo left a heritage of uncertainty.

III. The Doctrinal Standards: their nature and identity. What are these "existing and established standards" of Method­ ist doctrine, which, like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, may not be altered ? They are apparently like the common law, taken for granted by all, yet capable of accurate and complete definition by none, and never summarized in any authoritative document. 1. See John J. Tigert, Constitutional History of American Episcopal Method­ ism, 6th edn, 1916, p. 146. Their place and manner of appearance varied greatly, however, so that omission and error can readily be understood. In the 1785 Minutes they appear without any titles, the discussion of antinomianism form­ ing the questions and answers of the two closing sections, 80 and 81, while the statement on perfection forms the lengthy closing paragraph of the answer to question 73. (See Tigert, pp. 585-6, 600-2). In 1787 their order was reversed, "Against Antinomianism" forming section 16 and "On Perfection" section 22, as noted above. This remained true until 1790, when each was elevated one step, to slip back once more in 1791 through the insertion of a new section on Band Societies. 44 At the present time the candidate for full connection in the American Methodist ministry undergoes an examination modelled on that given by John Wesley to his preachers. Questions 8-10 of the nineteen asked on this occasion run thus : (8) Have you studied the doctrines of The Methodist Church? (9) After full examination do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures? (10) Will you preach and maintain them?2 Similarly the British Methodist minister is challenged every year of his ministry with this question, asked at the May Synod : "Does he believe and preach our doctrines?" This sounds exemplary, but it does not answer the question, "What are these doctrines which we must believe and preach?" The accepted practice of the American Methodist Church seems to be to treat the Articles of Religion as "our doctrines", with a vague suspicion that something additional is implied. The British Methodist Church has a radically different approach, refusing to make a credal statement, taking general orthodoxy of belief for granted, and thinking of "our doctrines" as that something else implied but not stated in American Methodism. What, then, is this "something else"? Perhaps a closer look at the present posi­ tion in British Methodism, clinging so much more tenaciously to ancient traditions, will enable us to visualize more clearly the doctrinal standards of our Methodist forefathers in this country, standards bequeathed to us, indeed forced upon us, by the first restrictive rule of the 1808 General Conference, and loyally accepted by the 1939 Uniting Conference. The doctrinal standards of British Methodism are set out in the Deed of Union adopted by the three uniting churches in 1932 and, unlike everything else in that deed, may never be altered by the Conference, though the Conference is the final authority in their in­ terpretation. This is much the same as the position of the modern American General Conference, though the uniting Conference pro­ vided for a possible amendment of the first restrictive rule. (Disci­ pline, Pars. 9.1, 10.2.) Yet in this British Deed of Union the doc­ trines are never listed nor defined, any more than they were in any of Wesley's legislation. They are concerned with the spirit rather than with the letter of the law of God. It is taken for granted that the Methodist preacher accepts "the fundamental principles of the 2. Discipline, 1964, Par. 345. 45 historie creeds and of the Protestant Reformation", and he is expected to emphasize especially "the doctrines of the evangelical faith . . . based upon the Divine revelation recorded in the Holy Scriptures." Though these are never strictly defined, they are illustrated, in Wesley's manner and from Wesley's writings: "These evangelical doctrines to which the preachers of the Methodist Church both ministers and laymen are pledged are contained in Wesley's Notes » on the New Testament and the first four volumes of his sermons." The Model Deed of the British Methodist Church stipulates that no doctrines contrary to these may be preached in any Methodist Church. The significance of this lack of precision is thus spelled out in the Deed of Union : The Notes on the New Testament and the Forty-Four Sermons are not intended to impose a system of formal or speculative theology on Meth­ odist Preachers, but to set up standards of preaching and belief which should secure loyalty to the fundamental truths of the Gospel of redemp­ tion, and secure the continued witness of the Church to the realities of the Christian experience of salvation. The voice is indeed Wesley's voice, though the words are those of his followers. For this was the principle on which he tried to ensure the loyalty of Methodism to its evangelical calling, and these were the very documents which he legally established as exemplars of evangelical doctrine. Exactly this pattern was followed at first in American Methodism. Gradually the Articles of Religion came to occupy a distinctive place as a formal and specific doctrinal standard, and eventually were regarded by many as the only genuine standard. As a statement of the theological emphases of Wesley and his American colleagues, however, the Articles are clearly defective, for where is Christian Perfection to be found? The Methodist Protestant Church tried to remedy this defect by a 26th Article on Sanctification, but, although this is printed in the present Discipline, its status is left deliberately vague, and it clearly does not have the authority of the original twenty-five. No longer are Wesley's Notes and Sermons mentioned. Their place in the trust clause for Methodist property is now re­ placed by a general statement that the premises are held in trust "subject to the discipline and usage of the said church, as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference." (Dis­ cipline, Par. 174) This does not in fact mean—as I hope to show— that Wesley is not present on Methodist premises, but that he is concealed therein, a dusty skeleton in a dark cupboard. 46 To see the early American situation fully we need to go back behind 1784 to 1773, to the first Methodist Conference held on Ameri­ can soil. The preachers present agreed that "the doctrine and discipline of the Methodists, as contained in the Minutes," should be the sole rule of their conduct. In thus accepting the Minutes they knew that they were accepting the principle that the trust deeds of Methodist chapels should contain a clause restricting them from preaching any other doctrines therein than those "contained in Mr. Wesley's Notes upon the New Testament, and four volumes of Sermons." This was made slightly more specific in the challenging opening question of the 1781 Conference : "What Preachers are now determined ... to preach the old Methodist doctrine, and strictly enforce the discipline, as contained in the notes, sermons, and minutes published by Mr. Wesley?" This same loyalty was demanded by the Conference of April-May 1784 as an essential prerequisite before any European preacher could be accepted into the American work. Unfortunately the Minutes of the American conferences during the eighteenth century are little more than statistical bones with only an occasional shred of historical flesh clinging to them, so that they do not enable us to reconstruct the body of this primitive church. It is to the Disciplines that we must turn for fuller information. Even here, however, we find the merest crumbs of theological leaven scattered in the disciplinary lump. The Christmas Conference of 1784 asserted the virtual independence of American Methodism, instituting indigenous episcopal government and several modifications of Wesley's discipline. But his theology remained untouched, al­ most unmentioned. A few incidental scraps of doctrinal teaching were retained, such as the somewhat inadequate summary (in a brief section on pastoral duties) of "our doctrine" as "repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ". Wesley's doctrines seem to have been regarded as almost inviolable; the main thing was to give attention to the discipline. Both doctrine and discipline, however, were vulnerable. That this was realized may be seen from the caution against elaborate building plans for new chapels, which might give rich men undue influence— "And then farewell to the Methodist Discipline, if not Doctrine too/'3 One important casualty on the way from Wesley's Minutes to the 1785 Discipline was the stipulation about naming Wesley's Notes and Sermons in trust deeds as the Methodist doctrinal standards. For a time the American Methodist Conference had no explicit doctrinal 3. Tigert, op. cit., p. 592. 47 policy apart from the three doctrinal sections carried over from Wesley, "Of the Rise of Methodism", "Against Antinomianism", and "Of Perfection".

IV. The Doctrinal Tracts incorporated with the Discipline, 1788-1808 This deficiency was remedied by the greatly enlarged fourth edition of the Discipline, published in 1788. The reference to the Notes and Sermons as defining the general area of Methodist theologi­ cal emphasis was restored. This Discipline did more, however, much more. The title-page drew attention to "some other useful pieces annexed"—which in fact comprised two-thirds of the volume. These five "useful pieces" illustrated characteristic Methodist teaching from the writings of Wesley. The first addition was mainly histori­ cal and disciplinary in function—The Nature, Design, and General Rules of the United Societies of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America—an almost exact reprint of the Wesleys' General Rules of 1743, though their signatures are replaced by "Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury. May 28, 1787." In 1789 this document was moved up into the general body of disciplinary regulations, and has remained there ever since, forming the subject of the fourth restrictive rule of the 1808 General Conference : "They shall not revoke or change the General Rules of the United Society." The second tract appended in 1788 was "The Articles of Religion, as received and taught in the Methodist Episcopal Church throughout the United States of America." Once again this was in substance John Wesley's work, his abridgment of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer into the twenty-five of the Sunday Service of the Methodists. Once again this was incorporated into the general body of the Discipline, though not until 1790, along with other doctrinal tracts. Once again it was named as a in­ violable part of the Methodist constitution by the restrictive rule of 1808. The third tract dealt with Cokesbury College and does not here concern us. The fourth was The Scripture Doctrine of Predestina­ tion, Election, and Reprobation. By the Rev. John Wesley, M.A.*— an antidote against some of the dangers of Calvinism noted in the statement on the rise of Methodism. Like the Articles, this was in­ corporated into the body of the Discipline in 1790, and was pre­ sumably part of the doctrinal standards set up in 1808 as inviolable. 4. Actually it was not Wesley's own composition but extracted by him, probably from the work of William Wogan. 48 The same is true of the fifth tract. Once more it is Wesley, though Wesley in disguise. His original treatise had been entitled Serious Thoughts upon the Perseverance of the Saints, but his editors ap­ parently found it necessary for American consumption to expound the word "perseverance" and to expunge the word "saints". The resultant title appeared as "Serious Thoughts on the Infallible, Un­ conditional Perseverance of all that have once experienced Faith in Christ." (They nevertheless allowed the word "saints" to stand in the second paragraph, where Wesley defined the term.) To the 1789 Discipline a most important addition was made, augmenting generously the minute section on sanctification. This was no other than that spiritual classic A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, as believed and taught by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, from the year 1725 to the year 1765, which filled nearly ninety pages. The year 1790 saw an important change of policy. All the doctrinal tracts were included as numbered sections of the official constitution, and to signalize the change a parenthetical phrase was added to the title, which thus became A Form of Discipline . . . (now comprehending the Principles and Doctrines) of the Methodist Episco­ pal Church in America. Once more an addition was made to these tracts, though this time it was not from the pen of Wesley. It was entitled A Treatise on the Nature and Subjects of Christian Baptism. Extracted from a late Author. This had in fact been published in Philadelphia two years earlier by Moses Hemmenway (1735-1811) as A Discourse on the nature and subjects of Christian baptism. John Dickins printed about half the contents as a separate work of seventy-one pages in 1790, and it seems quite possible that the perusal of Dickins' extract led to its official adoption by his colleagues as a doctrinal standard in this insufficiently covered area. The Discipline of 1791 continued to proclaim itself as "compre­ hending the Principles and Doctrines" of Methodism, but added nothing farther to the doctrinal sections. In 1792 the parenthetical sub-title became a part of the main title, and from that year to this the volume has remained The Doctrines and Discipline of the church— on the title page at least. This same Conference of 1792—the first to be claimed as a General Conference, though the term had not yet been invented—re-arranged the material in its newly-designated Doctrines and Discipline. The formal statement of doctrine in the twenty-five articles was promoted to first place in Chapter I, after the description of the origin of the church, while the lengthier doctrinal commentary contained in the tracts was relegated to the 49 closing sections of Chapter III. A further addition was made to these, in the shape of what we now know as the ritual, but which was then described as "Section X. Sacramental Services, &c." For some reason a few copies appeared without the bulky doctrinal tracts, so that "The End" could be printed on page 72. In their preface to the 1792 Discipline the bishops (Asbury and Coke) differentiated between the two parts of their doctrinal stan­ dards, though insisting on the importance of both, in what amounts to a recital of the titles of the tracts : We wish to see this little publication in the house of every Methodist, and the more so as it contains our plan of Collegiate and Christian education, and the articles of religion maintained, more or less, in part or in the whole, by every reformed church in the world. We would likewise declare our real sentiments on the scripture doctrine of election and reprobation; on the infallible, unconditional perseverance of all that5 ever have believed, or ever shall; on the doctrine of Christian perfection, and, lastly, on the nature and subjects of Christian Baptism. Nevertheless they were not prepared to treat this supplementary matter as sacrosanct. Early in 1797 Asbury wrote about a task apparently entrusted to him and Coke by the 1796 General Con­ ference: "We have struck out many to us exceptional [i.e. exception­ able] parts of the tracts. These we did not hold as sacred as the discipline, which we did not alter a word."6 In fact, however, the bishops' bark was worse than their bite. However vigorously they wielded the blue pencil, the published results remained the same through subsequent editions, with the one exception that Hemmenway's treatise on baptism was removed from the 1797 Discipline. The 1798 edition was unique in furnishing "explanatory notes" by Coke and Asbury, who estimated that the discipline proper occupied seventy pages and their notes one hundred pages, so that even with the removal of Hemmenway's treatise and the ordination services from the tracts the resultant volume would reach three hundred pages.7 In the event, however, it was decided to publish the notes in very tiny print, and to omit the tracts from at least this edition, so that the 1798 Discipline turned out to have slightly fewer pages than that of 1797. Not everyone was happy about the changes, and at the General Conference of 1800 "Brother J. Stone- 5. Altered to "who" in 1798. 6. Journal and Letters of Francis Asbury (1958), III: 159. 7. Ibid. 50 man moved that the explanatory notes be left out of the next edition of the Form of Discipline, except the notes upon the Articles of Religion." After pondering the matter for a weekend the conference reached a compromise: that the Discipline and the notes should be printed separately, so that preachers could have them bound together if they wished. In the following eleventh edition of the Discipline (1801) the notes were accordingly omitted and the tracts restored, and so it remained for the editions of 1804, 1805, and 1808.

V. The Doctrinal Tracts separated from the Discipline. Another major change was ordered by the General Conference of 1812, its manner apparently dictated by the first restrictive rule of the preceding General Conference of 1808. As we have seen, this rule sought to fix for all time the "present existing and established standards of doctrine". These clearly included the Articles, and apparently also—though not quite so clearly—the doctrinal principles relating to Notes and Sermons, the doctrinal sections, and the doctrinal tracts—possibly even the Ritual. All these had been in­ corporated in the Discipline at the time of the restrictive rule. The mass of day-to-day legislation, however, was becoming embarrassingly large. (If only they could have seen the tightly packed little Discipline of a century and a half later!) To continue to publish these lengthy tracts in the Discipline was difficult, to add to them impracticable, to do away with them henceforth illegal. The delegates meeting May 1-22, 1812, eventually accepted a neat solution for their dilemma, one foreshadowed and possibly suggested by the treatment of the bishops' "explanatory notes". They would publish their authoritative doctrinal commentary in a volume separate from their doctrinal creed. On the very last day of the protracted Conference Jesse Lee moved and the delegates approved this resolution: "That the tracts on doctrine be left out of the future edition [s] of our form of Discipline, and that the following tracts be printed and bound in a separate volume, viz., : 'Predestination Calmly Considered', 'Scripture Doctrines on Election and Reprobation', On Final Per­ severance', Ά Predestinarían and his Friend', 'Christian Perfection', and 'An Antinomian and his Friend'." In effect it might be said that the Doctrines and Discipline was henceforth to be published in two volumes, Vol. 1 dealing mainly with Discipline and Vol. 2 with Doctrine. Bishop Tigert did not seem unduly surprised to discover (as he thought) that at least the latter half of this Conference direction had 51 been overlooked for twenty years—and the apparent neglect of the 1800 Conference's injunction to publish the bishops' explanatory notes in a separate volume would give some color to this belief. (In­ deed I understand that even in these enlightened and efficient days it is not unknown for a General Conference to pass resolutions which are immediately forgotten, even by their promoters.) In this particular instance, however, fairly prompt action was taken. The first thing was to issue the revised fifteenth edition of the Discipline without the tracts, and this was done that very year of 1812, followed up by a sixteenth edition in 1813. The unwary student tracing these volumes in a card catalogue, however, would hardly realize that extensive cuts had been made, for the volumes retained almost exactly the same number of pages, by the simple expedients of reducing the size of the paper and increasing the size of the type. With these two diminished Disciplines under his belt the Conference printer, John C. Totten, turned to the supplementary volume, which one hopes was eagerly awaited. In 1814 there duly appeared the first edition of the "Doctrinal Tracts", and subsequent editions continued to be given that designa­ tion on their leather labels, though never on their title pages. The title remained constant (with minor variations in the second sentence) through at least fifteen editions covering the best part of a century : A Collection of Interesting Tracts, explaining several important points of Scripture Doctrine. Published by order of the General Con­ ference. The preface pointed out that these tracts had been omitted so that the quadrennial issue of the Discipline "might be small and cheap"—an unfortunate phrase that was amended in 1825 to "that they might still be within the reach of every reader." This volume was almost twice the size of its companion Discipline and contained 360 pages. The reason was that Jesse Lee's resolution had been followed not strictly but generously, even to the end of the second mile and beyond. In addition to the original three doctrinal tracts added by 1789, Lee had requested and been granted three more of Wesley's smaller publications (the dialogue between a Predesti­ narían and his friend, and the two between an Antinomian and his friend) and another of his major works, Predestination Calmly Considered. So now there were seven—or would have been had not the two Antinomian tracts been forgotten—or deliberately omitted. Already there was matter here for a volume slightly larger than the Discipline. As if to atone for the omission with a work of supereroga­ tion, no fewer than nine other items were added, almost doubling the 52 size of the volume. Six of these were by Wesley, including his controverted sermon on Free Grace, his satire on Toplady's predesti- narianism entitled The Consequence Proved, and a "pinch-hitter" for the tract on antinomianism (a word carefully avoided) with the some­ what fanciful title A Blow at the Root, or Christ stabbed in the house of his friends. The most considerable of the non-Wesley items was "A Short Method with the Baptists, by Peter Edwards, several years Pastor of a Baptist Church, at Portsea, Hants.", which filled over thirty pages and had originally appeared in England in 1793 as Candid Reasons for renouncing the principles of Antipaedobaptism. (Possibly a change in title was indeed called for!) There must have been a reasonably good sale for this volume, because an unaltered second edition appeared in 1817. Eight years later yet another edition was needed. This time there was a general revision. The Methodists were still seeking an antidote to the pernicious doctrines and annoying success of the Baptists. Hemmen­ way's Discourse had been discarded. Now Edwards' Short Method was shed. Maybe Mr. Wesley could do as well ; at least they would give him a try. And so the preface announced: "In the present edition some new Tracts are added, and Mr. Wesley's short Treatise on Baptism is substituted in the place of the extract from Mr. Edwards on that subject." As always, the preface was unsigned, though it was dated, "New-York, October 5th 1825." This volume was remarkable for the fact that each of the thirteen tracts was presented as a distinct entity, its pages numbered and its gatherings printed separately from its companions, though the gatherings were signed consecutively—with figures instead of with letters. Probably many of the items were in fact sold separately. This was certainly true of the last, Wesley's Plain Account of Christian Perfection, which was described on the title page as "Tract No. XXXVI of the New-York Methodist Tract Society." Any surplus pages at the ends of the tracts were filled with appropriate (though little-known) poems by Charles Wesley, or with additional prose material. Even more was added to Wesley's Treatise on Baptism (which was in fact mainly the work of his father) ; this was supplemented by another tract, an extract from William Wall's History of Infant Baptism, which Wesley had published in 1751 under the title of Thoughts on Infant Baptism, together with "Remarks on Infant Baptism, by H. S. Boyd, Esq." (an English patristic scholar). The demand for these doctrinal tracts continued, and in 1831 this same collection appeared in consolidated form, the gap-filling Charles 53 Wesley hymns omitted, and the other material printed consecutively on 388 pages. Strangely enough even the 1825 preface is reproduced exactly as in the original, complete with the earlier date and the statement that "two editions have been published and sold"—a statement which now contained the truth, but not the whole truth. The following year the lasting need for such a collection was recognized by the provision of a stereotyped edition. This followed the somewhat condensed pattern of 1831, still more compressed into 378 pages. The editor deserves a hearty pat on the back for at last restoring the original title of Wesley's Serious Thoughts upon the Perseverance of the Saints. The preface was almost unchanged ex­ cept for the re-writing of two sentences, one about the two former editions, the other about "several new tracts" (a phrase replaced by "some new tracts") and the alteration of the date to "New-York, July 5, 1832." Indeed this change of date is the only evidence we so far possess that an 1832 edition was in fact published, no copy of the volume itself having been discovered. This preface appears in a reprint, presumably from the stereotypes, after a title-page dated 1834. Copies are also known dated 1836, 1847, 1850, 1854, and 1856, and one undated. In 1861 the volume was once more revised, and the new preface closed somewhat optimistically : "We hope the circulation of the book will be extended until the errors it so ably explodes shall be fully banished from the Church. The Publishers. New York, January 1, 1861." This revision included a caustic defense of Wesley against an attack by a Presbyterian who had been misled by a misprint and his own ignorance. The main alteration, however, was once more in the area of infant baptism. Even Mr. Wesley had not won the day, and he in his turn was dismissed for an anonymous modern writer, apparently a Methodist, who cited not only a liberal Calvinist like Dr. Leonard Woods of Andover, but also long-discarded Peter Edwards. There were at least two reprints of this revised edition, one in the 1870's and another about 1892.

VI. The Disappearance of the Doctrinal Tracts. In the face of at least fifteen editions of the Collection of Interest­ ing Tracts it is somewhat amazing that Bishop Tigert, writing his Constitutional History of American Episcopal Methodism in 1894, had never seen a copy, and in his revised issue of 1904 expressed surprise at meeting with even one edition. This contained the 1832 preface, from which he incorrectly deduced that the book agents had 54 waited twenty years to carry out the Conference injunction—a some­ what excessive delay even in those unenlightened days. He decided to supply the supposed lack of early initiative by himself issuing the original tracts in two small volumes of what he could then describe as the "well-known series of 'Little Books on Doctrine' ", entitling the volumes The Doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. In spite of his confident optimism, this work also is now so extremely rare that I have not so far been able to find a copy. Maybe Methodism needs still another Bishop Tigert to reawaken us to our lost heritage. Our own generation is at length realizing that the methods of Methodism are far from being her only glory, that the Discipline as it stands at present has more affinities with Leviticus than with Luke, and that the real secret of an effective Methodism is spiritual and theological. Perhaps we need once more to study our evangelical foundations, so much taken for granted that they have too often been neglected. As we do this we should surely realize that John Wesley's gospel as well as his creed, not only in its spirit but in its literary expression, long remained and apparently still remains an integral though forgotten element in the "present existing and established standards of doctrine" which form an essential legal part of the constitution of the Methodist Church in America. True, "present existing" might at first glance seem to refer to 1939, or 1964, or 1966. In fact, however, it is the most recent successor of an unbroken line of exact quotations, all General Conferences having vowed to maintain the "present existing" standards of the predeces­ sors, and thus in effect having vowed to maintain the doctrinal standards existing in 1808. In theory at least Methodist theology did not change its eighteenth-century oil-lamps for gaslight in the mid-nineteenth century, nor for electricity in the twentieth; like the Olympic runners, through the quadrenniums it has handed on the torch kindled at John Wesley's warmed heart. Nor need this cause us disgust—or even distress. Methods may change, but the message of God's eternal saving love in Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to­ day, and forever. [Acknowledgments: I wish to record my indebtedness to the librarians of the following libraries, who made it possible for me to have access to their treasures, including the editions of the Collection of Interesting Tracts listed : American Antiquarian Society (1814, 1817); Library of Congress (1814, c.1856-60 [Carlton & Porter], c.1872-80 [Nelson & Phillips]); Bangor Theological Seminary (1825): DePauw University (1836, 1856, c.1856-60 55 [Carlton & Porter]); Drew University (1814, 1817, 1831, 1836); Duke University (1814, 1817, 1825); Emory University (1814, 1817, 1825); Garrett Theological Seminary (1817, 1861); Method­ ist Publishing House, Nashville (1817, 1836, 1850, 1856, c.1892 [Hunt & Eaton, etc.]); Methodist Theological School in Ohio (1847); Southern Methodist University (1814, 1834, 1850, 1854); Syracuse Univerity (1825) ; Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary (1847) ; Vanderbilt University (1814, 1850).] ^s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.